Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-16
The Other SIDE.

The Other SIDE.
We published few days ago a brief
abstract of a speech which had just
been made in New York by our friend
and former townsman FRANK w. DAw-
SON, Esq, now of Charleston, $. G.
The next day We commented briefly
upon his speech. The reader viii Te-
collect that the burthen of his speech
was the iniquity of protective tariff.
He was avowedly willing TO let even
Old Virginia go over to the Republi-
can party rather than to make terms
with those of her people who favor
tariff protecting her mines, her sumac,
&c, &c.
Mr.. DAWSON is the editor and pro-
prie;or of the Charleston NeUs and
Courier. In late issue of that paper
the reader may find the following para
graphs
"No argument should be needed at
this late day to impress upon the peO-
pie of any cotton-producing district the
Importance to them of encouraging the
erection i'll their immediate neighbOr-
hood of rs many accommodating
establishments as may be practicable.
To accomplish this end every reason
able inducement should be held out to
capital seeking investment.
"'The most effective inducement to
capitalists in this matter, while it costs
the State little or nothing and works
no injury to the public anywhere, is
the exemption of new mills from taxa
ton for term of years. The incidental
benefits arising from the presence and
operation OF cotton-factOry under
such conditions are worth far more than
the amount of any uncOllected tax. 1t
is wiser surely to obtain these benefits
by renting the tax than to insist upon
the tax and obtain neither tax nor any
thing else.
Are not the doctrines taught i'll those
paragraphs totally inconsistent with our
Charleston contemporary reasons for
opposing protective tariff? Are they
not exactly the doctrines taught by the
Atlanta Constitution? To us his teach
inas 9eem to be nothing more nor less
than advocacy of the proposition that
it is right to levy direct tax upon one
man for the benefit of another. Not
only that, but worse ; for as there are
already cotton factories in operation i'll
the "cotton-prolucing districts" it
follows that the owners of these fac
tories are to be called upon to pay not
only their own proper share of the
State and county or city taxes, but also
the share which, in the absence OF
protective laws, would fall upon the
owners of the new factories. Either
this would be the result, or else the
owners of the old factories would also
have to be exempted from the payment
of taxes. This would only make the
wrong still more inexcusable, seeing
that the result of such exemptions
would be to transfer the taxes that
ought to he paid 10y both old and new
cotton factories to the shoulders OF
men manufacturing other articles than
cotton.
The City Attorney of Richmond re-
Gently gave it as his opinion that an or
dinance making exemptions similar to
those proposed 10y the Ncws and Cou-
ricr would be unconstitutional in Vir-
ginia, since our Constitution requires
all taxes, whether levied by the State
or by counties and cities, to be equal
and uniform" We submit, therefore,
that our Charleston contemporary adj
vocates tax which would not be
"equal and uniform" He is worse
than Pig-Iron KELLEY.
Such doctrines as the Mus mi
Courier advocates We should not be
surprised to find i'll Democratic papers
favoring moderate tariff protecting
American industries--for examples, the
Atlanta CONSTITUTIONS, the Louisville
Post, the Nashville Union, the Macon
7clegroph, &c, &c. but a man who
cannot imagine, as Mr.. DAWSON cannot,
what good il would do to the public
generally for a tax of eight dollars on
every one hundred pounds of tobacco
to be taken off our manufacturers and
planters, could hardly have been ex-
pected 10 imagine that it would do any
good TO the public generally to exempt
the owners OF cotton-iactories from a
tax OF dollar or two ON each hundred
dollars worth of their property.